|
Appendixes To The Companion Bible
The Serpent of
Genesis 3.
This Is Appendix 19 From The Companion
Bible.
In Genesis 3 we have neither allegory,
myth, legend, nor fable, but literal historical facts set forth,
and emphasized by the use of certain Figures of speech (see
Appendix 6).
All the confusion of thought and
conflicting exegesis have arisen from taking literally what is
expressed by Figures, or from taking figuratively what is
literal. A Figure of speech is never used except for the purpose
of calling attention to, emphasizing, and intensifying, the
reality of the literal sense, and truth of the historical facts;
so that, while the words employed may not be so strictly true to
the letter, they are all the more true to the truth conveyed by
them, and to the historical events connected with them.
But for the figurative language of
verses 14 and 15 no one would have thought of referring the
third chapter of Genesis to a snake; no more than he does when
reading the third chapter from the end of Revelation (chapter
20:2). Indeed, the explanation added there, that the "old
serpent" is the Devil and Satan, would immediately lead one to
connect the word "old" with the earlier and former mention of
the serpent in Genesis 3: and the fact that it was Satan himself
who tempted "the second man", "the last Adam", would force the
conclusion that no other than the personal Satan could have been
the tempter of "the first man, Adam".
The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in
Genesis 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine, and
means a shinning one. Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or
copper, because of its shining. Hence also, the word Nehushtan,
a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4.
In the same way Saraph, in Isaiah
6:2,6, means a burning one, and, because the serpents mentioned
in Numbers 21 were burning, in the poison of their bite, they
were called Saraphim, or Seraphs.
But when the LORD said unto Moses,
"Make thee a fiery serpent" (Numbers 21:8), He said, "Make thee
a Saraph", and, in obeying this command, we read in verse 9,
"Moses made a Nachash of brass". Nachash is thus used as being
interchangeable with Saraph.
Now, if Saraph is used of a serpent
because its bite was burning, and is also used of a celestial or
spirit-being (a burning one), why should not Nachas be used of a
serpent because its appearance was shining, and be also used of
a celestial or spirit-being (a shining one)?
Indeed, a reference to the structure of
Genesis 3 (on page 7) will show that the Cherubim (which are
similar celestial or spirit-beings) of the last verse (Genesis
3:24) require a similar spirit-being to correspond with them in
the first verse (for structure of the whole chapter is a great
Introversion). The Nachash, or serpent, who beguiled Eve
(2Corinthians 11:3) is spoken of as "an angel of light" in verse
14. Have we not, in this, a clear intimation that it was not a
snake, but a glorious shining being, apparently an angel, to
whom Eve paid such great deference, acknowledging him as one who
seemed to possess superior knowledge, and who was evidently a
being of a superior (not of an inferior) order? Moreover, in the
description of Satan as "the king of Tyre" 1 it is distinctly
implied that the latter being was of a super-natural order when
he is called "a cherub" (Ezekiel 28:14,16, read from verses
11-19). His presence "in Eden, the garden of 'Elohim" (verse 13,
is also clearly stated, as well as his being "perfect in beauty"
(verse 12) his being "perfect" in his ways from the day he was
created till iniquity was found in him" (verse 15), and as being
"lifted up because of his beauty" (verse 17).
These all compel the belief that Satan
was the shining one (Nachash) in Genesis 3, and especially
because the following words could be addressed to him :- "Thine
heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted
thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the
ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee"
(verse 17).
Even supposing that these things were
spoken to, and of, an exalted human being in later days (Ezekiel
28), still "the king of Tyre" is not compared to a being who was
non-existent; and facts and circumstances which never happened
are not introduced into the comparison.
There is more about "the king of Tyre"
in Ezekiel 28:11-19 than was literally true of "the prince of
Tyre" (verses 1-10). The words can be understood only of the
mightiest and most exalted supernatural being that God ever
created; and this for the purpose of showing how great would be
his fall. The history must be true to make the prophecy of any
weight.
Again, the word rendered "subtle" in
Genesis 3:1 (see note) means wise, in a good sense as well as in
a bad sense. In Ezekiel 28:12 we have the good sense, "Thou
sealest up the sum, full of wisdom"; and the bad sense in verse
17, "thou hast corrupted thy wisdom" (referring of course, to
his fall). So the word rendered "subtle" is rendered "prudent"
in Proverbs 1:4; 8:12; 12:23; 14:8; and in a bad sense in Job
15:5. 1Samuel 23:22. Psalm 83:3.
The word "beast" also, in Genesis 3:1,
chay, denotes a living being, and it is as wrong to translate
zoa "beasts" in Revelation 4, as it is to translate chay "beast"
in Genesis 3. Both mean living creature. Satan is thus spoken of
as being "more wise than any other living creature which Jehovah
Elohim had made". Even if the word "beast be retained, it does
not say that either a serpent or Satan was a "beast", but only
that he was "more wise" than any other living being.
We cannot conceive Eve as holding
converse with a snake, but we can understand her being
fascinated 2 by one, apparently "an angel of light" (i.e. a
glorious angel), possessing superior and supernatural knowledge.
When Satan is spoken of as a "serpent",
it is the figure Hypocatastasis (see
Appendix 6) or Implication; it no more means a snake than it
does when Dan is so called in Genesis 49:17; or an animal when
Nero is called a "lion" (2Timothy 4:17), or when Herod is called
a "fox" (Luke 13:32); or when Judah is called "a lion's whelp".
It is the same figure when "doctrine" is called "leaven"
(Matthew 16:6). It shows that something much more real and truer
to truth is intended. If a Figure of speech is thus employed, it
is for the purpose of expressing the truth more impressively ;
and is intended to be a figure of something much more real than
the letter of the word.
Other Figures of speech are used in
verses 14,15, but only for the same purpose of emphasizing the
truth and the reality of what is said.
When it is said in verse 15, "thou
shalt bruise His heel", it cannot mean His literal heel of flesh
and blood, but suffering, more temporary in character. When it
is said (verse 15), "He shall crush the head", it means
something more than a skull of bone, and brain, and hair. It
means that all Satan's plans and plots, policy and purposes,
will one day be finally crushed and ended, never more to mar or
to hinder the purposes of God. This will be effected when Satan
shall be bruised under our feet (Romans 16:20). This, again,
will not be our literal feet, but something much more real.
The bruising of Christ's heel is the
most eloquent and impressive way of foretelling the most solemn
events; and to point out that the effort made by Satan to evade
his doom, then threatened, would become the very means of
insuring its accomplishment; for it was through the death of
Christ that he who had the power of death would be destroyed;
and all Satan's power and policy brought to an end, and all his
works destroyed (Hebrews 2:14. 1John 3:8. Revelation 20:1-3,10).
What literal words could portray these literal facts so
wonderfully as these expressive Figures of speech ?
It is the same with the other Figures
used in verse 14, "On thy belly shalt thou go". This Figure
means infinitely more than the literal belly of the flesh and
blood; just as the words "heel" and "head" do in verse 15. It
paints for the eyes of our mind the picture of Satan's ultimate
humiliation; for prostration was ever the most eloquent sign of
subjection. When it is said "our belly cleaveth unto the ground"
(Psalm 44:25), it denotes such a prolonged prostration and such
a depth of submission as could never be conveyed or expressed in
literal words.
So with the other prophecy, "Dust shalt
thou eat". This is not true to the letter, or to fact, but it is
all the more true to truth. It tells of constant continuous
disappointment, failure, and mortification; as when deceitful
ways are spoken of as feeding on deceitful food, which is "sweet
to a man, but afterward his mouth shall be filled with gravel"
(Proverbs 20:17). This does not mean literal "gravel", but
something far more disagreeable. It means disappointment so
great that it would gladly be exchanged for the literal
"gravel". So when Christians are rebuked for "biting and
devouring one another" (Galatians 3:14,15), something more
heart-breaking is meant than the literal words used in the
Figure.
When "His enemies shall lick the dust"
(Psalm 72:9) they will not do it on their knees with their
literal tongues; but they will be so prostrated and so utterly
defeated, that no words could literally depict their overthrow
and subjugation.
If a serpent was afterward called a
nachash, it was because it was more shining than any other
creature; and if it became known as "wise", it was not because
of its own innate positive knowledge, but of its wisdom in
hiding away from all observation; and because of its association
with one of the names of Satan (that old serpent) who "beguiled
Eve" (2Corinthians 11:3,14).
It is wonderful how a snake could ever
be supposed to speak without the organs of speech, or that Satan
should be supposed able to accomplish so great a miracle 3
It only shows the power of tradition,
which has, from the infancy of each one of us, put before our
eyes and written on our minds the picture of a "snake" and an
"apple" : the former based on a wrong interpretation, and the
latter being a pure invention, about which there is not one word
said in Holy Scripture.
Never was Satan's wisdom so craftily
used as when he secured universal acceptance of this traditional
belief: for it has succeeded in fixing the attention of mankind
on the letter and the means, thus blinding the eyes to the
solemn fact that the Fall of man had to do solely with the Word
of God, and is centered in the sin believing Satan's lie instead
of Jehovah's truth.
The temptation of " the first man Adam"
began with the question "Hath God said ?" The temptation of "the
second man, the Lord from heaven" began with the similar
question "If thou be the Son of God", when the voice of the
Father had scarcely died away, which said "This IS My beloved
Son".
All turned on the truth of what Jehovah
had said.
The Word of God being questioned, led
Eve, in her reply, (1) to omit the word "freely" (3:2, compare
2:16); then (2) to add the words "neither shalt thou touch it"
(3:3, compare 2:17); and finally (3) to alter a certainty into a
contingency by changing "thou SHALT SURELY die" (2:17) into
"LEST ye die" (3:3).
It is not without significance that the
first Ministerial words of "the second Man" were "It is
written", three times repeated; and that His last Ministerial
words contained a similar threefold reference to the written
Word of God (John 17:8,14,17).
The former temptation succeeded because
the Word of God was three times misrepresented ; the latter
temptation was successfully defeated because the same Word was
faithfully repeated.
The history of Genesis 3 is intended to
teach us the fact that Satan's sphere of activities is in the
religious sphere, and not the spheres of crime or immorality;
that his battlefield is not the sins arising from human
depravity, but the unbelief of the human heart. We are not to
look for Satan's activities to-day in the newspaper press, or
the police courts ; but in the pulpit, and in professors'
chairs. Wherever the Word of God is called in question, there we
see the trail of "that old serpent, which is the Devil, and
Satan". This is why anything against the true interests of the
Word of God (as being such) finds a ready admission into the
news-papers of the world, and is treated as "general
literature". This is why anything in favour of its inspiration
and Divine origin and its spiritual truth is rigidly excluded as
being "controversial".
This why Satan is quite content that
the letter of Scripture should be accepted in Genesis 3, as he
himself accepted the letter of Psalm 91:11. He himself could say
"It is written" (Matthew 4:6) so long as the letter of what is
"written" could be put instead of the truth that is conveyed by
it; and so long as it is misquoted or misapplied.
This is his object in perpetuating the
traditions of the "snake" and the "apple", because it ministers
to the acceptance of his lie, the hiding of God's truth, the
support of tradition, the jeers of the infidel, the opposition
of the critics, and the stumbling of the weak in faith.
NOTES :
1 Ezekiel 28:11-19, who is quite a
different being from "the Prince of Tyre", in verses 1-10 who is
purely human.
2 It is remarkable that the verb
nachash always means to enchant, fascinate, bewitch; or of one
having and using occult knowledge. See Genesis 30:27; 44:5,15.
Leviticus 19:26. Deuteronomy 18:10. 1Kings 20:33. 2Kings 17:17;
21:6. 2Chronicles 33:6. So also is the noun used in Numbers
23:23; 24:1.
3 Greater than that wrought by God Himself, who opened the
mouth of Balaam's ass. |
